Hi Paul, 2010-07-18 01:13 Paul Libbrecht <[email protected]>: > Isn't it pretty obvious that treating in OpenMath things outside > OpenMath is problematic?
It took me some time to realize that. Before this discussion, I had thought that the OpenMath CD language merely has an awkward way of dealing with URIs, but otherwise is more expressive than RDFS. > Don't we need some "functors" down here that would "create an OpenMath > something" based on some external description? Here's my 2p, using a > functor external1#dlmf-description which would be interpreted as "a > symbol defined in the text pointed at the named URL with the classical > rigor of DLMF". I think there is now a consensus emerging for representing these links outside of the CDs. > <FMP><OMOBJ> > <OMA><OMS cd="relation1" name="eq"/> > <OMS cd="transc1" name="sin"/> > <OMA> > <OMS cd="external1" name="dlmf-description"/> > <OMSTR>http://dlmf.nist.gov/4.14.E1</OMSTR> > </OMA> > </OMA> > </OMOBJ></FMP> I don't think that a specific external1#dlmf-description is needed, as from the http://dlmf... URI it's already clear that we are talking about the DLMF. But what we would probably need, and what could solve the issue of translating csymbol/@definitionURLs to OpenMath, might be a generic String→URI constructor, e.g. <OMA> <OMS cd="external1" name="uri"/> <OMSTR>http://dlmf.nist.gov/4.14.E1</OMSTR> </OMA> > I would tend to feel this as being cleaner. > And I have no preference between relation1#eq and owl#sameAs. I think > the more interesting question is what would be the equivalence of > subclass statements. I didn't understand the last sentence, could you please explain it again? Cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Lange, Jacobs Univ. Bremen, http://kwarc.info/clange, Skype duke4701
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Om mailing list [email protected] http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om
